2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
8-25-2005 

# N eumeye r v

. B e ard
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-1499

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" N e umeye r v

. Be ar d " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 588. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/588P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 04- 1499

TE RES A NEUM EYE R; LARRY NEUM EYE R, A p p e llan ts

v. J E FFR E Y B E A R D , i n hi s offi ci al capa ci tyas S e c re tar yo f

th e P A D O C ; K E N N E T H K Y L E R , in hi s offi ci al capa ci tyas Super i nt endentof SC I atH unt i ngdon

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. C i vi l N o. 02- cv- 02152) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. J ames M
. M unl ey
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y11, 2005 B efore: S L O V ITE R and M cK E E , C i rcui tJudg es,

and FU L L A M , D i s tr i ctJ udge * ( Fi l ed: A ugus t25, 2005)

H on. J ohn P. Ful l am, Seni orJ udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct * C our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on.2 Ter e s a N e umey e r , Pr o Se Larr yN e umey e r , Pr o Se P. O
. B ox 172 C hes ani ng, M i chi gan 48616 A pp e l l a nt s Pr o Se G era ld J. Pa p p ert A t t orneyG ener al Fr anci s R
. Fi l i pi Seni orD eputyA t t orneyG ener al C al vi n R
. K oons Seni orD eputyA t t orneyG ener al Jo h n G
. K n o rr, III C hi ef D eputyA t t orneyG ener al C hi ef, A ppel l at e Li t i gat i on Sect i on O ffi ce of A t t orneyG ener al H arr i s bur g, PA 17120 A t t orney s forA ppel l ees

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. A cti n g p ro se , P lai n ti ff

s/A p p ell an ts T ere sa a n d L arry N eumey erbr oughtthi s act i on pur s uantt o 42 U
. S. C
. § 1983 s eeki ng a dec l ar at oryj udgm entagai ns tD efe ndant s / A ppel l ees J eff r eyB ear d, the Secr et aryof the Penns y l vani a D epart m entof C o rre c tio n s, a n d K e n n e th K y ler , the S u p e rin ten d e n t o f th e S tate C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut e atH unt i ngdon, Penns y l vani a ( her eaf t er “pri son o ffi ci al s”) , that the p ract i ce of subject i ng pri son v i si t ors’ v e h icle s to ra n d o m se a rc h e s v io late d th e F o u rth a n d F o u rte e n th A m endment s t o t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. T he U ni t ed S tate s D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia rejected this clai m as a m att er o f law an d thu s en tered su m m ary j ud gmen ti n f

a vo rof D e fe nd a nt s . N e umey e rv. Bea r d, 30 1 F.T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d i c tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 1331; thi s courthas j ur i s di ct i on overthe D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s fi nal or der pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. 3 S u p p . 2 d 3 4 9 (M .D . P a . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e N e u m e y e rs a p p e a l. 1 I. T er es a N eumey er ’ s father( “pr i s oner ”) i s a pr i s oner i ncar cer at ed atthe St at e C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut e atH unt i ngdon (“ S C IH ” ), an in stitu tio n m a n a g e d b yth e P e n n sy lv a n ia D epart m entof C orr ect i ons ( “D O C ”)
. N eumey er , 301 F. Supp. 2d at350. M r . and M s . N eumey er , w ho ar e ci t i zens of M i chi gan, m ake f

ai r l yr egul artr i ps t o vi s i tthe pr i s oneratthe S CI H. T he SC I H m ai nt ai ns a parki ng l otforus e byvi s i t or s s uch a s th e N e u m e ye r s w h i l e th e y a r e v i s i t i n g th e f a c i l i ty. N o t a b l y, s om e i nm at es have out s i de w or k det ai l s and s uch i nm at es “may ha ve a c c e s s t o v i s i t or s ’ ve hi c l e s pa r ke d a tthe pr i s on . ” 30 1 F. Supp. 2d at353. P riso n o f f icia ls h a v e p o ste d lar g e sig n s a t all entr ance w ay s t o t he pr i s on and i m m edi at el yi n fr ontof the vi s i t or s ’ parki ng l ot
. I n part , thes e s i gns r ead: T HI S I S A S T AT E CO RR E CT I ONAL I NS T I T UT I ON. ALL PERSON S, VEH I CLES AN D PERSON AL PROPERTY EN TERI NG OR BRO UG HT O N TH ESE GR OUNDS AR E S UB J E CT T O S E AR CH
. DR UG DETECTI ON DO GS A ND ELECTRO NI C D EVI CES M AY BE U SED FOR TH I S P UR POSE. K y l erD ecl a. ¶ 8. T he s i gns fur theri nform vi s i t or s thatany one c a u g h t b rin g in g p ro h ib ited item s o n to th e S C IH ’s p ro p e rtyw ill b e p r o s e c u t e d t o th e f

u l l e s te x t e n to f

th e l a w. U nderSC I H / D O C pol i cy , pr i s on vi s i t orvehi cl es parked on fac i l i tygr ounds ar e s ubj ectt o r andom sea r ches aft erthe4 ow neroroper at ors i gns a pr e- pr i nt ed “ConsentT o Sear ch V ehi cl e” f

or m . 301 F . Supp. 2d at350. I f an i ndi vi dual r efus es t o s i gn thi s form , SC I H / D O C offi ci al s s i m pl yr efus e the w oul dbe vi s i t orentr yt o t he pr i s on, as k the vi s i t ort o l eave the pr emi s es , and do notpur s ue furtheract i on. A s found bythe D i s tr i ctC our t : “I f a pr i s on vi s i t orr efus es t o pr ovi de w r i t t en cons entperm i t t i ng SC I H corr ect i ons offi cer s t o s ear ch hi s orher v e h icle , the n th e v isito r w ill n o t b e a llo w e d to e n ter th e p riso n to vi s i tanypr i s oneron t hatday
. ” I d. C om par e w i th Spearv. S o w d e rs, 7 1 F .3 d 6 2 6 , 6 3 2 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (“ S p e a r [ a v isito r to th e p riso n ] c laim s th a t [ p riso n ] o f f icia ls to ld h e r th a t sh e c o u ld e ith e r c o n se n t to th e se a rc h , o r th a t sh e w o u ld b e d e tain e d w h ile theys ecur ed a w arr antand then s he w oul d be for ci bl ys ear ched i f nec es s ary . ”)
. I f, how ever , the s ear ch pr ocee ds and the SC I H / D O C offi ci al s uncovercontr aband orevi dence of i l l egal i ty , theyw i l l not i fythe Penns y l vani a St at e Pol i ce. T he SC I H / D O C pol i cydoes notr equi r e corr ect i ons offi cer s t o pos s es s a s ear ch w arr ant , pr obabl e ca us e, or re a so n a b le s u sp icio n b e f o re th e ym a yse e k to se a rc h a v e h icle p a rk e d o n p riso n g ro u n d s. In a d d iti o n , the S C IH /D O C o f f icia ls do nots eek pe r m i s s i on t o s ear ch the vehi cl e of e veryvi s i t orw ho parks i n t he l ot
. A s found bythe D i s tr i ctC our t , “[t ] her e ar e no w ritten sta n d a rd s a s to h o w th e se a rc h e s a re to b e c o n d u c ted ; in gener al , theyar e conduc t ed r andoml yas t i m e and c om pl ement perm i t
. ” N eumey er , 301 F. Supp. 2d at350. T he N eumey er s have vi s i t ed the pr i s oneratthe SC I H on appr oxi m at el yt en occ as i ons . O n M ay28, 2001, and aga i n on M ay27, 2002, s ever al SC I H / D O C corr ect i onal offi cer s s ear ched the N eum ey ers ’ vehi cl e. 30 1 F
. S up p. 2d at35 0. P ri or t o these s ear ches , M s . N eumey ers i gned the w r i t t en cons entform . I d. A ccor di ng t o evi dence s ubm i t t ed bythe N eumey er s , once the SC I H / D O C offi cer s s el ecta vehi cl e fori ns pect i on and obt ai n the req u isi te si g n ature , theyreq u ir e the o p era tor an d an yp asse n g ers t o exi tthe vehi cl e and ope n pas s engercompar t m ent s and the trunk fori ns pect i on. T he r ecor d s how s thatthe tw o s ear ches of the N eumey er s ’ aut om obi l e di d notuncoveranycontr aband or5 evi dence of i l l egal act i vi ty . I ndeed, ther e does notexi s tany in f o rm a tio n o r a lleg a tio n s in a n yS C IH /D O C re c o rd s o r re p o rts in d ica tin g th a t th e N e u m e y e rs h a v e b ro u g h t – o r a ttem p ted to br i ng – unl aw ful contr aband i nt o the SC I H orpos s es s ed the s ame i n t hei rvehi cl e. O n N ovember26, 2002, the N eumey er s fi l ed a Com pl ai nt s eeki ng a dec l ar at oryj udgm entand an or derenj oi ni ng fur ther se a rc h e s o f

th e ir v e h icle . T h e C o m p lain t co n ten d e d th a t, in a sm u c h a s th e N e u m e y e rs p lan n e d to c o n tin u e to v isit th e ir in c a rc e ra ted re lativ e a t th e S C IH , the yp o ss e ss e d a re a so n a b le fea rthatSC I H / D O C offi ci al s w oul d cont i nue t o i nfr i nge upon thei rr i ght s i n t he futur e abs entj udi ci al i nt ervent i on. See gener al l yC i tyof Los A ngel es v. L y ons , 461 U
. S. 95, 101- 02 (1983 ). T he C om plai nt di d n ot s eek d am ages. T h ere af ter, the p arti es f

il ed cro ss-m o ti o n s fo r sum m ary j udgm ent
. T he D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed the r eportand r ecomm endat i on of a magi s tr at e j udge, fi l ed a M emora ndum O pi ni on, and ent er ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the pr i s on offi ci al s . N eumey er , 301 F. Supp. 2d at353. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. II. T h is co u rtrev iew s the D istri ct C o u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j udgm entde novo, appl y i ng the s ame st andar d as di d the D i s tr i ct C o u rt . U n io n P a c . R .R . C o . v . G re e n tr e e T ra n s p . T ru c k in g C o ., 2 9 3 F .3 d 1 2 0 , 1 2 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is appr opr i at e w her e ther e ar e no genui ne i s s ues as t o anym at er i al fac tand the movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof law
. S ee F ed
. R
. C iv. P. 56
. “S u m m aryjud g m en t, h o w ev er, m u st n o t b e g ra n ted w h e re th e re is a g e n u in e d isp u te a b o u t a m a ter ial f

a c t, ‘th a t is, if th e e v id e n c e is s u c h th a t a r e a so n a b le j urycoul d r eturn a ver di ctforthe nonmovi ng party . ’ ” Fas ol d v. J us t i ce, 409 F. 3d 178, 183 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng A nder s on v. L ibertyL o b b y , Inc
. , 4 7 7 U
. S
. 2 4 2 , 2 4 8 (19 8 6 )). H ere , there are no di s put ed i s s ues of m at er i al fac tand r es ol ut i on of thi s m att er tu r n s s o l e l yo n i n t e rp r e t a t i o n s o f l a w.T h e c a s e a tb a ri n v o l v e s o n l yv e h i c l e s e a r c h e s ; th u s , we 2 need not addr es s the ques t i on of w hetherand w hen the s us pi ci onl es s s ear ch of a pr i s on vi s it o r’s per s on w oul d be cons t i tut i onal
. See gener al l y T horne v. J ones , 765 F. 2d 1270, 1277 ( 5th C i r . 198 5 ) ( hol di ng thatC ons t i tut i on r equi r es corr ect i onal offi cer s t o have r eas onabl e s us pi ci on befor e su bj ect i ng pr i s on vis i t ors t o s tri p s earch); H un t er v. A ug er, 67 2 F. 2d 66 8, 67 4 (8 th C ir
. 1 9 8 2 ) ( 

### “[ W] e co n clu d e th at th e C o n stitutio n m an d ates th at a reaso n ab le su sp icio n stan d ard g o v ernstrip search es o f v isito rs to p en al in stitutio n s.” ) ; D es er l yv. M ont
. D ep’ tof C o rr. , 995 P. 2d 9 7 2 , 9 7 8 (M o n t. 20 0 0 ) (“ W h ile p riso n v isito rs c a n b e su b jec ted to so m e se a rc h e s, su c h a s p a t-d o w n s o r m e tal d e tec to r sw e e p s, m e re ly as a condi t i on of vi s i t at i on, abs ent an ys us pi ci on, m or e i ntrus i ve sea rch es, suc h as stri p sea rch es, req u ir e m o re.”). 6 III . Sect i on 1983, the fe der al ci vi l r i ght s s t atut e her e ati s s ue, “i s noti t s el f a s our ce of s ubs t ant i ve r i ght s , but[r ather ] a met hod forvi ndi cat i ng fede r al r i ght s el s ew her e conf err ed. ” B akerv. M c C o llan , 4 4 3 U .S . 1 3 7 , 1 4 5 n .3 (1 9 7 9 ). “T o e sta b lish liab ili ty under42 U
. S. C
. § 1983, a pl ai nt i ff musts how thatthe d ef en d an ts, ac ti n g u n d er c o lor o f law , v iolated th e p lai n ti ff ’s fede r al cons t i tut i onal ors t atut oryr i ght s , and ther ebycaus ed the compl ai ned of i nj ury . ” El m or e v. C l eary , 399 F. 3d 279, 281 ( 3d C i r . 2005)
. H er e, the N eumey er s ’ C om pl ai ntaverr ed thatthe p riso n o f f icia ls v io late d th e ir rig h ts u n d e r th e F o u rth A m endmentas m ade a ppl i cabl e t o s t at e ac t or s byoper at i on of the Four t eenth A m endment
. See gene r al l yM app v. O hi o, 367 U
. S. 643 ( 1961)
. Speci fi cal l y , the N eumey er s ’ C om pl ai nt cont ended thatthe pr i s on offi ci al s ’ pr ogr am has vi ol at ed and w ill c o n tin u e to v io late th e ir c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts b e c a u se it a llo w s S C IH /D O C c o rre c tio n a l o f f ice rs to c o n d u c t v e h icle s ear ches w i thoutanyi ndi vi dual i zed s us pi ci on. 2 T h e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t p ro tec ts th e “ rig h t o f th e p e o p le t o b e secure i n thei r per sons, ho uses, pap ers , and effects , against u n re a s o n a b le s e a rc h e s a n d s e iz u re s .” U .S . C o n s t. a m e n d IV
. T yp ica lly , in o rd e r to b e “ re a so n a b le” u n d e r th e F o u rth7 A m endment , a s ear ch mustbe s uppor t ed bya w arr ant , unl es s the se a rc h is s u p p o rta b le u n d e r o n e o r m o re o f th e “ sp e c if

ica lly es t abl i s hed and w el l

- del i neat ed exc ept i ons ” t o the w arr ant r equi r ement
. U ni t ed St at es v. B r i ghtw el l , 563 F. 2d 569, 574 ( 3d C i r . 1977) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i ons om i t t ed)
. H er e, the p riso n o f f icia ls a rg u e th a t th e S C IH /D O C p o licyis s u p p o rta b le un der both the “co nsent” excepti on and the “spe ci al need s” exce pt i on t o t he w arr antr equi r ement
. W e fi r s tcons i derw hether thi s cas e fa l l s w i thi n t he “s peci al needs ” exc ept i on. T he Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es has expl ai ned that“[n] ei thera w arr antnorpr obabl e ca us e, nor , i ndeed a ny m e a su re o f

in d iv id u a lize d su sp icio n , is a n in d isp e n sa b le co m p o n en t of

[F o u rth A m en d m en t] rea so n ab lene ss in e v ery ci r cumst ance . ” N at ’ l T r eas uryE m pl oy ees U ni on v. V on R aab, 4 8 9 U
. S
. 6 5 6 , 6 6 5 (19 8 9 ). R athe r: [ O ]u r c a se s e sta b lish th a t w h e re a F o u rth A m endmenti ntrus i on s erves s peci al governm ent needs , bey ond the norm al need f orl aw enfor cement , i ti s nece s s aryt o bal ance the i ndi vi dual ’ s pr i vacyexpec t at i ons agai ns tthe G o v e rn m e n t’s in ter e sts to d e ter m in e w h e th e r it is i m pr act i cal t o r equi r e a w arr antors om e l evel of in d iv id u a lize d su sp icio n in th e p a rticu lar c o n tex t. Id. at 66 5 -66 (em p h asis ad d ed ). In o ther w o rds, th ere are i ns t ance s w hen a s ear ch further s a “s peci al governm ent al need” bey ond thatof norm al l aw enfor cements uch thatthe s ear ch, al though nots uppor t ed bythe typi cal quantum of i ndi vi dual i zed su sp icio n , ca n n o n e th e les s s til l b e f o u n d c o n stitu tio n a lly “r eas onabl e. ” See, e. g. , V ernoni a Sch. D i s t
. 47J v. A ct on, 515 U
. S. 64 6 ( 19 95 ) ; M i c h. D e p’ tof St a t e Pol i c e v. Si t z , 49 6 U. S. 444 ( 1990)
. B uts ee Fer gus on v. C i tyof C har l es t on, 532 U
. S. 67 (2001 ) ( fi nd i ng un con st i tuti on al st at e ho spi t al ’s suspi ci on l ess per form ance of di agnos t i c t es tt o obt ai n evi dence of pr egnant pat i ent ’ s drug us e and hol di ng thats t at e’ s i nt er es ti n us i ng thr eat of cr i m i nal s anct i ons t o det erpr egnantw om en fr om us i ng coca i ne di d notqual i fyas s peci al need) ; C i tyof I ndi anapol i s v. E dm on d, 53 1 U
. S
. 32 , 48 (2000 ) ( ho l ding t hat s uspici on l ess8 s ei zur es athi ghw aychec kpoi nt s , conduct ed fori nt er di ct i on of il lega l dru g s, w as “ ind ist ing u isha b le fro m [In d iana p o li s’] g e n e ra l in ter e st in c rim e c o n tro l” a n d h e n c e v io lativ e o f F o u rth A m en d m en t)
. B eca us e the governm entneed nots how pr obabl e ca us e or even r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o s uppor ta s ear ch underthe s peci al needs doctr i ne, the governm entm us tpr ove i ns t ead thati t s s ear ch m eet s a gene r al t es tof “r eas onabl enes s . ” U nderthi s s t andar d, the cons t i tut i onal i tyof a pa r t i cul ars ear ch “i s j udged by bal anci ng i t s i ntrus i on on the i ndi vi dual ’ s Four th A m endment i nt er es t s agai ns ti t s pr om ot i on of l egi t i m at e governm ent al i nt er es t s ” bey ond thatof typi cal l aw enfor cement
. W i l cherv. C i tyof W i l m i ngt on, 139 F. 3d 366, 373- 74 ( 3d C i r . 1998) (i n terna l ci tat ion s an d q u o tat ion s o m itted). T h e re a d ya p p lica b ili tyo f th e sp e c ial n e e d s d o c trin e to the pr i s on cont exti s evi dent
. A s not ed bythe U ni t ed St at es C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e E ig h th C irc u it: T he pena l envi r onm enti s fr aughtw i th s er i ous s ecur i tydanger s . I nci dent s i n w hi ch i nm at es have o b tai n ed d rug s, w ea p o n s, an d o ther c o n tr ab an d are w el l

- document ed i n cas e l aw and r egul ar l yr ece i ve the att ent i on of the new s m edi a. W i thi n pr i s on w all s, a c en tr al objecti v e o f p ri so n ad m inistrators is to sa f e g u a rd in stitu tio n a l se c u rity . T o e f f e c tu a te th is g o a l p riso n o f

f icia ls a re c h a rg e d w ith th e d u ty t o i nt er ceptand exc l ude byal l r eas onabl e means a l l c o n tr a b a n d s m u g g l e d i n t o th e f a c i l i ty. H un t er v. A ug er, 67 2 F
. 2d 66 8, 67 4 (8t h C i r. 19 82 ); see al so St at e v. M anghan, 313 A
. 2d 225, 228 ( N
. J
. Super
. C t
. L aw D i v. 1 9 7 3 ). G i ven thes e conc erns , w e conc l ude that , cons i der i ng the rel at i velym i no r i nco nv enience of the sear ches, balanced ag ai nst th e S C IH /D O C o f

f icia ls’ s p e c ial n e e d to m a in tain th e se c u rity a n d sa f e tyo f th e p riso n th a t rise s b e y o n d th e ir g e n e ra l n e e d to e n f o rc e th e law , the p riso n o f f icia ls’ p ra c tice o f

e n g a g in g in9 s us pi ci onl es s s ear ches of pr i s on vi s i t or s ’ vehi cl es i s val i d under the s p ec ial n ee d s d o ctri n e. S ee S p ea r, 7 1 F
. 3 d at 63 2 -33 (“[ W ]e have made i tcl earthata governm entoffi ci al does notneed pr obabl e ca us e t o conducteverys ear ch and thata pr i s on vi s i t or s ear ch fa l l s i nt o a s peci al cat egory . ”) ; R om o v. C hampi on, 46 F .3 d 1 0 1 3 , 1 0 1 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (“ T h e p u b lic in ter e st in k e e p in g d ru g s o u t o f

p riso n s a n d m a in tain in g p riso n se c u rityis s ubs t ant i al
. . . . T he s t op of pl ai nt i ffs ’ vehi cl e ther efor e di d not v iolate th e F o u rth A m en d m en t. ”); C o m m o n w ea lth v . D u g g er, 486 A
. 2d 382, 384 ( Pa. 1985) ( “A pr i s on s ett i ng i nvol ves uni que c o n c e rn s a n d se c u rityrisk s, th e re b yn e c e ss itatin g m o re lee w a yin al l ow i ng s ear ches than mi ghtbe found i n a non- penal envi r onm ent
. ”) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. E dw ar ds , 498 F. 2d 4 9 6 , 5 0 0 -0 1 (2 d C ir. 1 9 7 4 ) (h o ld in g a irp o rt se a rc h e s re a so n a b le an d h en ce co n sti tuti o n al). T he N eumey er s ar gue thatthe s ear ches ati s s ue ca nnot fal l underthe s peci al needs doctr i ne due t o the fa ctthat SC I H / D O C offi ci al s not i fythe pol i ce i f theyuncover contr aband. T hus , ar gue the N eumey er s , the purpos e of the s e a r c h e s i s t o f

u r th e rth e g o a l s o f

o r d i n a ryl a w e n f

o r c e m e n t
. We re jec t th is a rg u m e n t. T h e m e re f a c t th a t a s e a rc h m a yre su lt i n arrest an d crim inal p rose cu ti o n , an d thu s h av e the an cil lary eff ectof further i ng or di naryl aw enfor cementconce rns , does not negat e the appl i cabi l i tyof the s peci al needs doctr i ne. I ndeed, th e S u p r e me Co u r th a s u p h e l d s u s p i c i o n l e s s s e a r c h p r o g r a ms even w hen the pr ogr am at - i s s ue r es ul t s i n arr es t s . See Si t z, 496 U .S . at 4 4 7 . W e th u s d e c lin e to h o ld u n c o n stitu tio n a l th e v e h icle s ear ch pr ogr am si m pl ybeca us e SC I H / D O C offi ci al s r eportany un cov ered i l l egali tyt o the poli ce. C f. U nit ed S t at es v. D avis , 4 8 2 F
. 2 d 8 9 3 , 9 0 8 (9th C ir
. 1 9 7 3 ) (“O f c o u rse, r o u ti n e a irp o rt s cr eeni ng s ear ches w i l l l ead t o di s coveryof contr aband a nd appr ehens i on of l aw vi ol at or s . T hi s pr act i cal cons equenc e does notal t erthe es s ent i al l yadmi ni s tr at i ve natur e of the s cr eeni ng p roc ess, ho w ev er, or ren d er the sea rch es u n co n sti tuti o n al. ”). O ne fi nal poi ntbear s m ent i on. T he r ecor d s how s that SC I H offi ci al s empl oyno w r i t t en s t andar ds as t o w hi ch vehi cl es ar e t o be s ear ched orhow the s ear ches ar e t o be conduc t ed; r ather , the D O C / SC I H corr ect i onal offi cer s conductthe s ear ches10 “r andoml yas t i m e and c om pl ementperm i t
. ” 301 F. Supp. 2d at 350. T he N eumey er s thus compl ai n thatthe vehi cl e- s ear ch p ro g ra m v e sts to o m u c h d isc re tio n in th e h a n d s o f th e o f f ice rs in th e f ield a n d c o n se q u e n tlyis n o t re a so n a b le. S e e g e n e ra lly D el aw ar e v. Pr ous e, 440 U
. S. 648, 661 ( 1979) ( hol di ng uncons t i tut i onal D el aw ar e’ s r andom aut om obi l e s t op and det ent i on pr ogr am i n partbeca us e i tves t ed ul t i m at e dec i s i on of w hatvehi cl es t o s t op i n “the unbr i dl ed di s cr et i on of l aw en fo rce m en t of

ficials .
. . in the field” ). A l though t he l ack of

s t andar ds orcons tr ai ni ng m echa ni s m s i n t he SC I H / D O C pr ogr am ra i s es the s pect erof a rb itrar in e ss , w e f

in d th e N e u m e y e rs’ a rg u m e n t u lti m a tely unavai l i ng. A s Pr ofes s orL aFave ha s comm ent ed: If n o t all v isito rs to a jail o r p riso n a re su b jec ted to s cr eeni ng . . . then ther e ar i s es the pot ent i al for arbi tr ar i nes s . . . . W hi l e an i ns pect i on s y s t em ext ended t o al l vi s i t or s i s cons equent l ynot a c c u sa to ryin n a tu re , a c o n trib u tin g f a c to r to fin d ing itrea so n ab le, itd o es n o t fo ll o w that a m o re s el ect i ve s cheme i s unr eas onabl e. I f per s onnel or o ther li m it ati o n s m ak e a scre en ing o f a ll v isi tors i m pr act i cabl e, i ti s cert ai nl ypr opert o conduct se a rc h e s a t ra n d o m , b u t itw o u ld b e o th e rw ise if cert ai n i ndi vi dual s w er e s i ngl ed outupon an i m proper basi s. 5 W a yn e R . L a F a v e , S e a rc h & S e izu re : A T re a tise o n th e F o u rth A m en d m en t § 1 0
. 7 (b), at 32 6 (4th ed
. 2 0 0 4 ). T he N eumey er s have notar gued, and the r ecor d cont ai ns no evi dence , thatSC I H / D O C offi cer s have s el ect ed s ear ch t ar get s on an i m pr operbas i s ( s uch as r ace )
. St at ed otherw i s e, alth o u g h the S C IH /D O C sea rch p rog ram ce rt ainlyh as m o re p o ten tial f

o r a b u se th a n , fo r in sta n c e , a p ro g ra m w h e re b ya ll vehi cl es ent er i ng the pr i s on w er e s ear ched, ther e i s no evi dence that S C IH /D O C o ff

icers h av e in f

ac t abu sed the p rog ram . In l i ghtof the s ubs t ant i al defe r ence thi s courtgi ves t o pr i s on o f f i c i a l s , s e e T u r n e rv . S a f l e y , 4 8 2 U. S
. 7 8 , 8 4
- 8 5 ( 1 9 8 7 ) , weI n l i ghtof o u r deci s i on, w e nee d notr eac h the pr i s on 3 o f f icia ls’ a ltern a te a rg u m e n t th a t th e S C IH /D O C p o licyis s uppor t abl e underthe consentexce pt i on t o the w arr ant re q u ire m e n t. 11 decl i ne t o hol d t he SC I H / D O C vehi cl e- s ear ch pr ogr am unr eas onabl e s i m pl ybeca us e i tves t s the dec i s i on of w hi ch vehi cl es ar e t o be s ear ched i n the r andom di s cr et i on of the offi cer s i n t he fi el d. I V. I n s um , w e hol d thatthe SC I H / D O C pol i cyof s ubj ect i ng pr i s on vi s i t or s ’ vehi cl es t o r andom sea r ches i s r eas onabl e, s uppor t abl e as a s peci al needs s ear ch, and henc e cons t i tut i onal d esp it e the lack o f in d ividu ali ze d su sp ici o n . W e w il l th u s af firm th e D istric t C o u rt’s e n tryo f su m m a ryju d g m e n t. 3